Sacrifice Becomes “Violence?”: Changing Attitudes Towards Animal Life among Indigenous Communities of India

This paper interrogates the question: when and how does the sacrifice of animals become “violence?” Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork among Indigenous communities of Gujarat India also known as the Bhil Adivasi peoples, this study examines the evolving attitudes towards animal sacrifice, particularly the ritual killing of goats and chickens as offerings to Adivasi deities. With the growing influence of reformist bhakti (devotional) traditions, particularly the BAPS branch of Swaminarayan Hinduism, Adivasi Indigenous communities are increasingly adopting a reformist discourse on human-animal relationality. While this language is not entirely new to the region, it is being revitalized and devotionalized by the devotional groups. Central to this inquiry is an analysis of two competing forms of religious language: one that conceptualizes animal sacrifice (vadhervu) as an act of ritual exchange with regional deities and another, informed by reformist discourse, that frames animal killing as violence (hiṃsā) — both of which seem to ironically uphold the spiritual oneness between humans and animals. 

The term vadhervu is a Bhil Indigenous term that refers to sacrificial offering to deities in a ritual context. The idea of sacrificial offerings traces back at least to the Vedic period, where sacrificial offerings prominently involved animals. However, critiques of animal sacrifice are not entirely new to South Asian context. Heterodox traditions such as Jainism and Buddhism challenged Vedic sacrificial practices by interpreting them as acts of violence. More recently, reformist bhakti groups like the Swaminarayan tradition have similarly applied this critique to killing of animals in both Hindu and Adivasi sacrificial contexts without condemning Adivasi rituals per se but contesting what is deemed acceptable as an offering.

This paper draws out forms of ethical thinking that operate within the two divergent religious languages, both of which uphold ontological equality of human and non-human animals. In the traditional language of sacrificial offerings, ethical emphasis is placed on reciprocity and exchange with deities, wherein animal sacrifice is a means of maintaining an amicable working relationship with the deities. Animals are venerated, elevated to a higher spiritual status, and offered to the gods as offerings of highest value. By contrast, reformist discourse prioritizes ahimsā (nonviolence) as primary ethical virtue and introduces “violence” into the vocabulary of sacrificial rituals. Instead, they advocate for nonviolent modes of divine appeasement and seek to reason that deities have purer demands of vegetal offerings. The reformist perspective reconfigures the selfhood of animals, portraying them as sentient beings ontologically at par with humans, with an intrinsic right to life rather than as spiritual beings that participate in ritual transaction. In several ways, the reformist language participates in a secularized discourse on human-animal relationship, i.e. those who adopt this language may be less intimately engaged with animal lives and their ways of living, rather they prioritize secular ideals of survival over religious veneration of animals. 

Traditional practices of the Bhil Adivasis align with broader Indigenous worldviews around the globe that frame human-animal relations as characterized by reciprocity, intimacy, and even spiritual oneness. In such traditions, animal sacrifice is often likened to forms of veneration found in the hunting rituals of Indigenous communities, where animals are respected for their role as ancestors and in sustaining human life when they are killed. However, the reformist language reframes spiritual oneness between humans and animals by foregrounding preservation, arguing that nonviolence by preserving life aligns more closely with nature by upholding the right of the animal to survive rather than be sacrificed as a ritual offering.  

The increasing prevalence of the term himsā in Adivasi discourse signals a shift in moral reasoning, shaped by historical interactions with Jain, Vaishnava, and bhakti traditions that have emphasized the textual classical moral value of ahimsā. This shift is reinforced by contemporary secular, economic, and religious factors. Rising costs associated with raising and purchasing livestock have made sacrificial practices financially burdensome, prompting many Adivasi communities to substitute animal offerings with vegetarian or non-living ritual objects. Additionally, secular critiques position animal sacrifice as an unnecessary form of violence—distinct from the ostensibly rational, necessary, and utilitarian killing of animals for commercial consumption. Furthermore, a secular/reformist critique from within Adivasi communities casts animal sacrifice as a fraudulent or excessive practice driven by the self-interest of ritual specialists (bhopās) rather than genuine divine demands. 

However, the notion of vegetarian offerings is not entirely new to the traditional Adivasi society. For example, Bhil Adivasi cosmology distinguishes between two types of deities: cokhā (pure) and melā (impure). While notions of purity and impurity exist within Adivasi traditions, they do not carry the same moral weight as in upper-caste Brahmanical ideology, where these concepts inform caste-based hierarchies and social exclusion. Instead, in Bhil Adivasi religiosity, purity and impurity serve as classificatory categories for deities, both of whom require veneration through distinct offerings. Cokhā gods, associated with purity, accept only vegetarian offerings, whereas melā gods, linked to impurity, are primarily appeased through meat sacrifices. Both pure and impure gods serve essential functions in the traditional Adivasi cosmology. However, the reformist language increasingly marginalizes impure gods or converts them to pure deities. Whereas previously divine demands included offerings of certain number of goats and chicken, the Adivasi gods are now happy with rice and coconut. In fact, some Adivasi gods now express outright displeasure of animal sacrifices and Adivasis risk divine displeasure if animal sacrifices are performed for their rituals, signaling a transformation in the interpretation of divine will.

Ultimately, this paper examines how Bhil Adivasis navigate these competing ethical, social, and religious changes and the ways in which attitudes towards animal sacrifices are evolving that increasingly incorporates the language of “violence” (himsā) as constituting animal sacrifice — a value that was never associated in traditional societies that emphasizes exchange, reciprocity, and spiritual oneness. balancing traditional ritual obligations with the pressures of reformist discourse. By foregrounding Indigenous epistemologies of sacrifice and their entanglements with historical and contemporary critiques, this study contributes to broader discussions on moral reasoning, religious change, and the politics of devotion in South Asia.